Related Stories

There are many many diets available today to those of us wishing to lose some extra weight. One current favourite is the so-called 'Palaeolithic diet'.

In a nutshell, it claims that our Palaeolithic ancestors lived in wondrous harmony with their environment, which gave them exactly what they needed to live a long and happy lifestyle.

And furthermore, it claims that the period of 12,000 years-or-so since we invented agriculture is too short for our bodies to have evolved to cope with the new foods that agriculture has given us.

So what is a Paleo-diet? Fruit, green vegetables, eggs, poultry, meat and seafood — but no dairy, grains, legumes or processed oils.

There are a few problems with this.

First, there were many very different varieties of Palaeolithic diets. Second, we humans have done a lot of evolving in the last 12,000 years. Third, we can't eat what our Palaeolithic ancestors ate anyway — because that stuff is not around any more. And fourth, the recommended Palaeolithic diet is way out of kilter with dietitians' recommendations.

Let's start with types of Palaeolithic diets. The Palaeolithic spans a period from around two-and-a-half million years ago right up until the invention of agriculture some 12,000 years ago.

When people started writing books about the Palaeolithic diet back in the 1970s, we had only a vague idea of what our Stone Age ancestors ate. But since then our anthropologists and archaeologists have looked at fireplaces, middens, teeth and the actual tools our ancestors used to prepare their meals. It turns out that they ate a very varied diet — which included insects. We see this in some of today's so-called primitive peoples. While the Inuit of the Arctic have a diet that is 99 per cent meat, the !Kung of Africa eat around 12 per cent meat. That's a huge range.

So, what else. Well, one cornerstone of the Palaeolithic diet creed is that our bodies could not possibly evolve fast enough in the last 12,000 years to accommodate our new foods.

This is so wrong.

In the last 12,000 years, some of us have evolved to be able to drink milk when we grow into adults, some of us have evolved extra copies of the amylase enzyme so that we can more easily digest starches, while some of us have evolved blue eyes. Others among us, in Africa, have evolved resistance to malaria. With regard to living at high altitudes, three separate groups of humans living in Tibet, the Andes and in Ethiopia have evolved three different methods of dealing with low oxygen. And speaking of food, some Japanese have evolved special bacteria in their gut that can digest seaweed — so sushi is no trouble at all. So yes, our bodies could easily evolve fast enough in 12,000 years to accommodate new foods.

The third problem with the Palaeolithic diet is that the food eaten back then is simply not around any more. Very few meats are as lean as those our Paleolithic ancestors ate. Today's corn was once a straggly skinny grass, while tomatoes used to be tiny berries. Bananas were mostly filled with seeds until a recent mutation. We have transformed the meat and plant species we eat through millennia of artificial selection and evolution. Consider cabbage, broccoli, brussels sprouts and cauliflower and kale — they are each wildly different cultivars of one single species, Brassica oleracea.

The fourth problem with the Palaeolithic diet is the nutritional aspects of the diet itself. The recommendation is a high protein intake (19-35 per cent of a person's daily energy) — which is quite a lot higher than the Australian Nutrient Reference value suggestion of 15 to 25 per cent.

The Palaeolithic diet also recommends a moderate to high intake of fat — again, not recommended by modern dietitians. The Palaeolithic diet does recommend fibre from vegetables and fruit (which is entirely sensible) but they advise not to eat any whole grains. However, we have very good evidence that 30,000 years ago some of our ancestors were already eating grains and legumes.

But, on the plus hand, the Palaeolithic diet advises against processed foods with added salt, sugars and flavourings — which is entirely sensible.

Gregor Yanega, a professor of biology at Pacific University in Oregon said: "Our guts are special because they are less specialised. They can accommodate so many changes in the foods that surround us … we can even eat some of the world's more difficult foodstuffs: grains, leaves and plants. Berries, nuts, meats, sugars, those are easy. Eating them together is pretty rare."

Bejo :

AD :

21 Sep 2013 12:34:59pm

1980's, hmm! about the same time that the personal computer became part of our lives and reduced our level of activity at work and play. I've noticed that some people can eat massive amounts of crap and yet their high level of physical activity has kept them from turning into lumps of lard but I imagine they'll eventually succumb to the poor nutritional value of eating junk. get off ya bums girls and boys and eat good tucker!

Bob :

10 Sep 2013 1:47:10pm

You misrepresent Paelo and then offer no science for your objections. Anyone who follows paelo knows that the history INFORMS our present, not decides our present. So I follow a Primal Blueprint lifestyle, I use dairy because I have the lactose gene. Lost 17kgs, awesome health results, feel like a teenager again. So, yeah, your opinion doesn't gel with my reality.

Jim :

Daly :

10 Sep 2013 3:38:29pm

Agree Bob - knowing what our Ancestors ate should empower us to make better choices. We don't necessarily have to emulate them 100%. Besides, the paleo diet encourages people to eat a large amount of fresh vegetables and fruit, is this really a bad thing?

semprini :

Jill :

10 Sep 2013 4:08:01pm

Lol.

Sometimes gravity doesn't 'gel' with my reality. But I'm stuck with it anyway.

What an asinine thing to say.

The paleo diet was an idea that didn't stand the test of science. If you like your eating pattern then fine - I'm glad it works for you. But don't get all huffy when the 'idea' actually has large logic holes in it. Just enjoy what you do and leave the logic to others.

Peter :

10 Sep 2013 4:34:23pm

So, you in return offer no science other than a personal anecdote. The Primal Blueprint diet? It is the theory of one fad dieting author, not of anyone with a science, archeology, medical or nutrition background. There is no scientific evidience to support the theorys of Paleo dieting, and this is what Dr K was pointing out.

Cled :

10 Sep 2013 6:01:39pm

I agree with Bob, this article completely misses the point of evolutionary nutrition. All the paleo authors worth their salt present current research findings, and actively encourage people to experiment and prove things for themselves. I personally stopped eating grains including corn, dairy, legumes, soy and cane sugar and I have never felt more vital, slept better, or had a better digestive experience. So conventional wisdom and current nutrition guidelines can screw off as far as I'm concerned. If you want real answers, try things for yourself - it's not going to kill you. Oh and fat doesn't make you fat as fast as sugar and is essential for optimal health. See Gary Taubes books for info.

Helen :

27 Sep 2013 1:46:50pm

Good-luck Cled, glad you're feeling more 'vital' now. However, hope you're aware by cutting out such vital food groups such as grains and dairy, you're predisposing yourself to conditions such as osteopenia and osteoporosis. Moreover, most of your fibre comes from your grains groups. There is a reason why qualified professionals, that have been at university for many years (i.e. Accredited practicing dietitians) recommend to eat a diet that encompasses all food groups.Maybe you should have a look at 'real' science, instead of books by people trying to make a quick dollar.Wake up to fad diets, and start eating for health.

Hilux :

10 Sep 2013 8:04:43pm

Wow, I am actually speechless about this ridiculous representation of the primal blueprint. The point really is that everyone has somewhat different nutritional needs. So we have a blueprint... This allows us to structure a diet that will best suit our individual needs. This paleo lifestyle has actually also evolved and in the 70's was actually renamed the optimum diet. The fact that it is at odds with current dietary guidelines should ring a bell??! We are not known as the healthiest country after all.

Emma :

hjt :

10 Sep 2013 11:17:05pm

The thrust of the article is not that you can't eat the modern idea of the Paleo diet and not that you can't use it to lose weight but rather that it is not better than some other dietary choices and is not much like what our ancestors probably ate.You almost certainly need more ants and grasshoppers in your diet ;-)

Crystal :

ravi wells :

you are correct Bob - criticism of the paleo diet is actually knee-jerk against something actually intelligent gaining mass popularity.

I stopped reading this article at "Second, we humans have done a lot of evolving in the last 12,000 years."

do ANY of these critics have a clue about genetics andhow bloody long natural selection/evolution takes ESPECAILLY when modern human traits come to bear on the process (keeping everyone disabled alive etc etc) i am not criticising the thical basse of the decisions but it has effectively stopped evolution on many fronts - we reproduce and make it to adulthood regardless or our unfitness for the task of survival in the natural world.

fact is we HAVE NOT evolved genetically in the last 12,000 years - at least not nearly enough to thrive on such non-human foodstuffs as grains and legumes.

but arguing with dumbness and ignorance is really pointless - we that have benefited so greatly from the paleo inspired diet will continue to evolve and those that don't will someday taste like chicken for the rest of us (;_))

JoeBloggs :

11 Sep 2013 1:32:57pm

Actually Ravi Wells that assumption of yours is incorrect, not only have we evolved genetically over the last 12,000 (and less) years.

For example there are calculations which estimate how long it took to increase the gene for adult lactase persistence (ALP) in northern Europeans from a pre agricultural incidence rate of 5% to its present rate of approximately 70% [Aoki 1991]. (Note: The enzyme lactase is required to digest the sugar lactose in milk, and normally is not produced in significant quantity in human beings after weaning.) In order for the gene frequency to increase from 0.05 to 0.70 within the 250 generations which have occurred since the advent of dairying, a selective advantage in excess of 5% may have been required [Aoki 1991].

Therefore, some genetic changes can occur quite rapidly, particularly in polymorphic genes (those with more than one variant of the gene already in existence) with wide variability in their phenotypic expression. (Phenotypic expression means the physical characteristic(s) which a gene produces). Because humans normally maintain lactase activity in their guts until weaning (approximately 4 years of age in modern day hunter gatherers), the type of genetic change (neoteny) required for adult lactase maintenance can occur quite rapidly if there is sufficient selective pressure.

Please not that maintenance of childlike genetic characteristics (neoteny) is what occurred with the geologically rapid domestication of the dog during the late Pleistocene and Mesolithic periods.

AD :

21 Sep 2013 1:22:28pm

Ravi, evolution can be a much faster process than originally thought, it really depends on what's driving it at the time. Our own human evolution to current form was the result of over 2.5 million years of rapidly fluctuating climate change but within that major driving force a whole raft of other evolutionary forces have been at work and continue to do so. consider all the minor evolutionary tweaking that has made one population different from another, such as skin colour; before the widespread use of clothing and eons later vitamin supplements, excessively dark skinned people couldn't maintain optimum health in the temperate regions due to vitamin D deficiency and excessively light skinned people couldn't colonise the tropics (unclothed) due to folate (essential for foetal development) destruction by sunlight through a skin lacking the protection of melanin. You can see bacteria evolve under a microscope over a period of several days (developing drug or toxicity resistance) it can happen fast or slow and depends entirely on what pointy stick is pushing it along but it never stops.

Gary :

11 Sep 2013 4:04:17am

Bob - your post says nothing in objection to the article. The Palaeo diet is a myth - ask any anthropologist and they'll tell you the same. The fact is that humans spread all round the world during the palaeolithic period, and we did so precisely because we were flexible in our diets.

AD :

21 Sep 2013 1:58:58pm

Gary, as an anthropologist I'll have to point out that if you believe the that the Palaeo diet is a myth then the Palaeolithic period is a myth also. All food sources consumed by our ancestors during the Palaeolithic was in effect a Palaeo diet. What characterised those food sources as being different to those of agrarian societies of today and back to about the last 10,000 years is the ratio of carbs in our diet. Today just about everything we eat has carbs in it, mostly from grains and an absurd amount of sugar. Sure humans were certainly meant to consume their fair share of carbs (yams and tubers etc.) and the quantity of amylase in our saliva as compared with chimps stands as testimony to this. Its really about overdoing the carbs and the type of carbs including lack of physical activity that's causing modern humans problems. Now go out and spear yourself a kangaroo or a fish, its all unadulterated Paleo mate.

Charlie :

11 Sep 2013 6:59:46am

It's possible that your new diet is better than your old diet, regardless. It's also a good bet that you now have more motivation to exercise. 'Paleo' is simply a more macho name for yet another high protein diet making extraordinary claims. And, no, your anecdote doesn't constitute extraordinary evidence.

Geoff :

12 Sep 2013 10:41:52am

I and my wife both in our mid 50s had been trying to lose weight gained slowly over the last 10 or so years. We have always exercised and had a good healthy diet but the weight has slowly creep up. My sister in law had gone on the Paleo diet and was having great sucsess, i looked at the diet and thought it was a bit extreme as we don't have any problem with dairy food. we decided to cut out carbs so basically no pasta, rice, bread or potato, i have gone from 83.2kg to 76.5 in 6 months and my wife went from 61 to 55 in the same time, our weight has been stable for 3 months and we very occassionaly have bread or rice maybe once or twice per week.i have lost nearly all my gut fat and all i did was replace the carbs with more vegetables and a little more lean meat and eggs. It seems to point to me that we don't need those servings of carbs with our meals.

Gary :

frequentist :

21 Sep 2013 5:17:35pm

Sad to see somewhere along the line "statistics" has been confused with "science".Every individual is a sample size of 1; does this mean it is impossible for any individual to know anything other than "anecdotes", given that each individual is not a population?It only takes one clear counterexample to scientifically invalidate a false paradigm.

Ben :

11 Sep 2013 10:13:28am

Saying you lost 17kgs and have present awesome health results means nothing.

You are looking down the barrel of many "western cancers" & heart disease. Just like all the "Kings & Queens" of old who ate high protein & high fat diets. Today it is called Blueprint/atikins/paleo tomorrow it is RedFairy Dust.

We have whole countries who eat what only the kings & queens could afford eg high protein & fat diets.

What does mean something is long term civilisations that are or have been healthy with very few cases of cancer & heart disease. They ate mostly rice, corn beans, legumes, yes wheat, potatoes with vegetables and "sometimes" meat, fish & dairy. Eg. Mostly Carbs.

God :

11 Sep 2013 11:00:44am

Firstly; it's paleo, not paelo.

Second;"offer no science for your objections" - Karl clearly lists 4 concerns regarding this diet, each of which is based on scientific principles. In response you refer only to your own anecdotal experience.

Third:"Lost 17kgs, awesome health results, feel like a teenager again. So, yeah, your opinion doesn't gel with my reality." - At no point in the artcile does Karl suggest that you cannot lose wieght through the diet. You could solely eat potato chips and coffee for 3 months and lose 17kgs; doesn't mean it is a balanced diet.

The point of the artcile is that the concept behind the diet, that is eliminating processed foods and returning to a more 'natural' diet, albeit well intentioned, isn't necessarily backed up by scientific proof. The onus of proof is on the proponents, not on sceptics.

Thinker :

16 Sep 2013 7:51:15am

'No science'..Did we read the same article?Dr Karl's opinion is based on science, yours is based on your test group of...one.Incidentally, if your Paelo history informs your present, are you hunting your own food, or at the very least gathering it?

bigbird :

Mitch :

15 Oct 2013 9:48:13pm

If you are going to use these types of diets and advise their effectiveness, then you should also have included in your theory other issues. Such as the amount of energy expended in collecting your diet intake, the life span of the Paleo Hunter Gatherer, resistance to diseases due to diet (without the help of modern nutritional aids). Also, in the Paleo environment, not all individuals would have had access to all the necessary food items due to their Tribal position and allocation of the necessities during drought, famine, etc.Good news that you lost some weight though (if that works for you), and cutting out processed food is great if you have the capacity and wherewithal to afford "Fresh food".Somehow, I think we lost the ability to reason with the Information supplied to us and just accept the easy food option and blame someone else.

Crafty :

10 Sep 2013 3:22:59pm

The whole ethos of the Paleo diet is that it questions perceived wisdom, including that of Dietitians on whose authority the author heavily relies. Dietary theories come, dietary theories go. Eggs, anyone? Did the obesity epidemic not start around the time that Dietitians became influential?

Dave :

10 Sep 2013 3:46:49pm

Of course we don't have access to exactly the same foodstuffs anymore, it is the principle so I don't think that is valid arguement against paleo. Maybe there has been enough time for some evolution of our gut, but not everyone has blue eyes do they. What about the seemingly ever increasing gluten/wheat intolerances being reported. I note the article indeed states that grains are "...some of the worlds more difficult foodstuffs...". Lastly we should always be challenging conventional wisdom i.e. dietitions recommendations. Paleo might not work for all but it works really well for some.

Always Correct :

barry v :

10 Sep 2013 4:00:38pm

Of course the Paleolithic diet is at odds with the modern dietitians whom's advice is feeding this obesity epidemic. The basis of the "Paleo" diet is to avoid the insulin spikes that highly processed carbohydrates generate. Avoid spikes and you'll avoid the associated detrimental health effects. Simple!

Tim :

10 Sep 2013 6:57:01pm

Dr Karl, I am really surprised at your citation of "modern dietitians" - these would be the same dietitians that recommended high carb, low/no fat diets? The same dietary guidance that has seen a massive surge in obesity?

ewkdon :

10 Sep 2013 8:35:21pm

Science is not about arguing the correctness of a diet on logic, analogies and soundness, but the performing of experiments to see the empirical effects. The paleo diet could work, but we don't have the data from a broad base epidimeological population study, (scientific study). Unfortunately Paleo enthusiasts will simply logically argue back the points presented in this article. Without both sides not coming any closer to the truth.

Leon Arundell :

10 Sep 2013 9:20:18pm

Dr Karl gives a useful critique of the theory behind the Palaeo diet,BUT:

(1) he does not offer empirical evidence as to whether the diet achieves its stated goals; and

(2) he provides little evidence to support his claim that Palaeolithic foods are no longer available. Kangaroo and wild caught seafood have changed little, and many former plant and animal foods are no longer recognised as such.

Julian :

10 Sep 2013 10:44:21pm

To take your points one at a time.1 No one thinks it is possible to know or replicate an actual Paleo diet and most realise the huge variety of diets which the term covers. It is not a diet so much as a way of evaluating food. More recent additions to the human diet might reasonably be regarded as needing to be proven safe in a way ancient foods do not. So for example sugar is a more likely candidate for being implicated in new diseases than fish which humans have eaten for at least 175000 yrs.The fact that there were many different diets does not negate the fact they had important similarities eg no cane sugar, no seed oils very little grain. This leads many to try avoiding those foods and if they experience health benefits to stay off them. Again a reasonable approach. It is impossible to completely replicate paleo diets with modern food, however no harm can come from approaching it with grass fed meat, fish, seafood, vegetables and whole fruit. The fact that most dietitians do not recommend paleo is neither here nor there. Dietitians have been wrong before.

alex h :

jc :

11 Sep 2013 12:20:09am

In recent years, the “paleo diet,” a diet based on the perceived eating habits of prehistoric people has become wildly popular. But, says paleontologist Christina Warinner, this diet is based on an incorrect view of how early humans lived. Using modern day research, Warinner traces the roots of the human diet to discover what we can really learn from the food of our ancestors. http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Debunking-the-Paleo-Diet-Christ

The Paleo Diet Is Uncivilized (And Unhealthy and Untrue).http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2012nl/jun/paleo2.htm

If the Paleo Diet fad is so healthy and responsible for brain growth, then why didn't the Neanderthals survive and thrive? They had 300,000 years in Europe following the diet to make themselves into "Einsteins!" Speaking of Albert Einstein, this is what he had to say on the subject of health and survival: "Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." http://www.veganfitness.net/viewtopic.php?t=723 & http://nutritionfacts.org/.

You get better results with a vegan lifestyle, without the high risks of cancer and heart disease, which most cavemen didn't live long enough to experience. It's eliminating processed foods and eating veggies that make you healthy!

Annie :

Dan :

11 Sep 2013 6:47:22am

One thing that you have forgotten to include is that the vast majority of people who start a paleo diet are also starting a new exercise regime. I think the focus Dr Karl should be on encouragement for those with the fortitude to make a change rather, than an opinion piece on a diet that is already working for so many. BTW, congrats on the weight loss Bob, stick to it : )

Andrew :

11 Sep 2013 7:54:36am

Thanks for your article Karl, I am a big fan of yours. On this occasion though, I think you need to correct a couple of things in your article. First, almost all humans had access to agriculture much more recently than 12,000 years ago. Perhaps those from the middle east did in 10,000 BC, but not the rest of us. Secondly, adaptation can be partial. For example, europeans and some african tribes can digest lactase - but the ability reduces rapdily as you age and the proteins in the milk still cause inflammation and the growth hormones in it contribute to cancer. Thirdly, yes ground seeds were on occassion eaten - perhaps for a very long period. However, the level of processing was minimal, making the GI much lower. In addition, they were ceremonial and occasional(as in Australian aboriginals) rather than a staple. Fourthly, hunter gathers choose to eat significant quantities of meat whenever it is available. Yes, the !Kung don't eat much, but only because they live in a desert. On average, humans historically got around 60% of their kilojules from animals. As you say though, we are highly adaptable to different environments and potentially to different diets. But to thrive, and not just survive, we need to reduce or eliminate processed foods and up our intake of animal protein. Seriously, try it - you'll feel great almost straight away.

Ben :

11 Sep 2013 8:37:35am

I’m disappointed that you are quoting government recommendations, rather than journal articles, Dr Karl. In order to meet the US recommended daily allowance for all your essential micro-nutrients following the USDA diet, you’d have to eat about 20,000 calories a day. The idea that you can get all your nutrients from foods following a 'balanced' diet is a complete myth. If we all tried to eat this way, there'd be an obesity epidemic. Oh wait…

Your strawman argument about evolution is valid, but irrelevant – while looking for the optimal human diet, it makes sense that researchers would start with foods that our Palaeolithic ancestors ate, but the criteria is not whether they actually ate them, but should we eat them? Science says yes.

Organic fruit and green vegetables, pastured eggs, naturally raised poultry, grass-fed meat and wild caught seafood – it matters how your food is raised, it should be as close to how nature intended as possible. If it comes in a packet, or has an advertisement on TV, you probably shouldn't eat it.

You should get a large portion of your calories from quality fats, like coconut, avocado, and animal fat – to give your body the building blocks it needs to function properly.

Eating this way, you will regain your optimal body weight, have more energy and alertness – all of your ageing/health markers will improve. The body loves homeostasis - if you give it everything it needs, and nothing it doesn't, it will adjust its composition to function more efficiently.

Con :

11 Sep 2013 8:56:10am

What a disappointing attempt to debunk the whole Paleo message in a single article. At least the information regarding how our food chain has changed so dramatically is correct, mentioning numerous times that we have evidence that X, but the message about what is wrong nutritionally with the diet does not attempt to do that. This is nothing more than a collection of all the existing dogma and legacy teaching discounting what is now a wealth of emerging evidence that we have made some grave errors, and Paleo is so far the best attempt to undo said errors. The most depressing discovery for a teacher is to discover that they've been faithfully perpetuating what ends up being more based on opinion than what they think they're debunking. As a clinician it is one of the most painful discoveries I had to make. Your audience is far more critical than it once was, with the ability to access information from leaders in the area reviewing the latest science (I'm not talking about pseudoscience and the blogosphere). If you are to continue attempting to educate the public, you are obliged to so as well. No effort has been made to review recent evidence, and to critically appraise existing dogma. If you are attempting to inform the public in this era of easy access to hard science (I'm not talking about the blogosphere) you are obliged to see if what you say is still valid or whether you continue to perpetuate teaching that was never based on good science. In an era where science aims to be more critical than ever, it's a shame that medicine continues to not question previous science because it was conducted by giants. See "Millikan's experiment as an example of psychological effects in scientific methodology".

GG :

15 Sep 2013 1:57:32pm

Good Calories Bad Calories is one of the game-changing books in the last several decades, completely debunking various public health mytrhs including the need for hig carb low-fat diet, which has made so many people sick it isn't funny.

Dr Karl's weak appeal to dietitians, most of whom are poorly educated in nutrition, is no tscience, but a fobbing of legitimate concerns abour today's diets.

Poppa :

11 Sep 2013 9:11:55am

Karl, while I agree that there are issues with the idea of it being a 'paleo' diet, there's actually a lot of evidence to support eating more than recommended fats and proteins, and much much less carbohydrates (yes, including whole grains). The vast majority of nutritional research these days is showing this to be the case, it's just taking a long time for popular culture (and governmental recommendations) to catch up. I resist from calling myself 'paleo' because of the historical issues, but I eat low carbohydrate and high fat and protein, and have also never felt better.

Bob, keep up the good work. The rest of the world will catch up one day.

FelixFrost :

11 Sep 2013 10:09:25am

The argument that it goes against current medical advice doesn't really mean much. Current medical advice has done nothing to stem the tide of obesity and diabetes. You either accept that human nature has SUDDENLY become incredibly glutinous or you think a little harder about what might have changed in our diet. There are clearly some who can tolerate these 'new' foods, but can everyone?

GG :

Mick :

11 Sep 2013 10:56:03am

Much of your objections were the differences between dieticians and the paleo diet, and you concluded that the paleo was wrong due to this difference but this is exactly the point that the paleo diet argues; it argues against conventional wisdom. The Australian Healthy Living Pyramid still recommends bread as “eat often”, but we all know now that bread makes you fat. Some people take the paleo thing a bit further than I do, a lot further actually, I eat dairy, sometimes I eat bread and even junk food every now and then but what I take from the paleo diet is: eat mostly plants and animals, don’t eat refined sugar, highly processed oils, or lots of carbs. There’s nothing really wrong with the paleo diet, it promotes healthy eating, doesn’t hurt anyone else, whether or not the reasoning behind it is true or not. Grains and cereals are basically a substitute for meat and vegetable, however if it wasn’t for grains and cereals then we’d all still be living in caves and we’d all be on the paleo diet.

JoeBloggs :

GG :

15 Sep 2013 2:13:27pm

The difference between what seem slike "common sensre" and empirical scientific expeirmentation and analysis is vast.No - common sense has its place, but is often superficial.If you don't know that someone's metabolism reacts unfavourably, then recommending th apparently common sense approach that they eat less of that substanbce seems fine but isn't.

I'll take actual knowledge over "common sense" anytime, especially when that "common sense" is based on nothing but assumptions.

This represents CURRENT scientific research, rather than the increasingly outdated low fat (but high carb) approach of the last few decades, which the evidence shows has not contributed to lowering obesity or preventing related diseases. In fact the evidence shows that the outdated approach has only added to the epidemics we currently face.

Some of the comments above have called for science to back up following a low carb diet, I've gathered the above for these people to read for themselves, so please make the effort to do so.Thank you.

GG :

SLE :

11 Sep 2013 2:34:39pm

Check your facts Mr Kruszelnicki! You are not the purveyor of all scientific wisdom and when it comes to understanding the finer points of the Paleolithic Diet and is lifestyle, you have really proved yourself to me uninformed. Since when did you become an expert in nutrition?

If you want to understand the Paleolithic Diet and its concepts (the word Diet being somewhat of a misnomer) then stop the misinformation and go and read something about the world's top expert and founder of the Paleo Movement, Dr Loran Corain and his work. If you want science then please spend time reading some of the hundreds of studies and trials that he cites in his book, The Paleo Diet (revised to The Paleo Answer) which he uses to back his claims.

One of the most powerful concepts of the Paleolithic lifestyle and it diet is that notion of being able to prevent and even reverse illness. I can tell you, I am living proof of that after having completely changing to the regime due to suffering Auto-immunity (SLE) for much of my adult life. I am living proof that the concept has basis in science, as per Boyd, Cordain et. al.

One of the biggest scourges of modern time is the ever increasing prevalence of Auto-immunity. Incredibly, when on takes time to READ the literature, it can be seen that many of these auto-immune diseases including Systematic Lupus Erythmatosis (SLE), Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and those more common diseases such as Cardiovascular Disease CVD, Cancer and Diabetes are linked (modern studies have already identified this link). Cordain, brings all the best Epidemiological and modern scientific data together and concludes that our modern Neolithic diet is the cause of many of out modern ailments.

Instead of rubbishing something that you clearly have no understanding of and basing you conclusion on hear-say and bias. How about you do as good scientist should and do some research and check your facts. You are not being helpful to people who could genuinely benefit from changing to this diet.

One thing I want to draw attention to is that there are political issues surrounding this Ideal and the people In-the-know (the large stake-holders... you know who you are!) don't like the Paleo concept at all. Times and viewpoints change and so must our nutritional needs to improve the long-term health of our nations people. It's a question of economics as a much as anything.

I will leave you with one sobering final thought. If it wasn't for our Argri/Oil based economy there would be a vastly lower human population on this planet of ours. Now, there are 14000kJ of convertible energy in a kilo pack of flour. Try to feed the worlds current and increasing population using proper Nutritionally-dense foods such as those in the Paleo Diet. This statement is not intended to shoot myself in the foot but rather to make people aware of what has happen since we started to consume more and more grains (grass-seeds).

Old Mate :

11 Sep 2013 6:57:46pm

Thanks Karl. You might have added the fact that fire has only been around for a tiny fraction of our existence as well - yet these "Paleo" freaks don't seem to be eating all their food raw. But there is very little time for factual analysis when you're too busy out there, on the plains of the Savannah, gathering pre-packaged, filleted chicken breast, and roasted & salted 500gm packets of nuts.

will :

11 Sep 2013 7:38:50pm

When debating diets I suspect there is more to how much energy out Palaeolithic ancestors used to gather their food rather than its exact composition. I dont think they drove to Coles and agonised in the aisles about the carbohydrate to protein balance. They ate what they could gather or hunt which would have been highly variable between seasons and years.

Kirra :

11 Sep 2013 7:57:12pm

I eat what would be considered a paleo diet, and its greatest benefit for me personally is the elimination of my acne . I also maintain a slim physique for someone who has a sedimentary lifestyle, and my boyfriend 'eats paleo' whenever he wants to lose weight (fat) quickly. This obviously comes from the fact that the diet is low in carbohydrate and high in protein and fat. I did however just recently do a research essay for a uni course on the claimed benefits of the paleo diet. If you type in paleo/paleolithic diet into google scholar there are a lot of accessible research articles that conclude that the diet offers health benefits if you wish to read for yourselves.

Happy Harold :

JoeBloggs :

16 Sep 2013 1:37:16pm

Yes Giga,

God designed you to eat 50 mars bars a day and do nothing but sit on a couch with a remote in hand.

You know, why bother eating well and exercising, its not like this life is important. All this life is about is ensuring you get the required brownie points to live forever in the magical cloud land with Yahweh and his harp playing angels.

Troppo :

11 Sep 2013 9:46:23pm

given the outpouring of vitriol and the lack of understanding of science, it seems probable that a fan based email list has been activated (for a commercial product?). For those ignorant, Dr Karl is a qualified scientist, doctor and surgeon as well as having numerous other qualifications that warrant more than the cursory dismissal that appear to be all the competence that most correspondents can employ. I have watched family and friends become ill and die on high protein diets.

GG :

15 Sep 2013 2:26:05pm

Dr Karl is one scientist who in this case has much faulty inforamtion and lazt appeals to authority ie dietitians in this piece.

So sorry if we question your idol, but having qulaifications doesn't mean you don't get questioned.For a scientists, this is not a good or perswuasive article.It is a fairly typical media piece, however, with a goo doe of "do what your doctor tells you and stop asking questions."The main reason people look for other information is precisely because what their doctors/nutritionsist advise is NOT working for them and they are still sick or don't feel good.

Doctors know sometings, and not others. They are not gods who automatically know everything, especially when they don't update their knowledge.Dr Karl and other scientists are in the same position. If they stick to the truisms of long ago, we can happily ignore them.

Itis perhaps more interesting that the low-carb high fat diet vs hig carb low-fat have often been incomptetion with each other, but one or the other has been placed more prominently in the media.

Media is also useful, but also not the ultiamte arbiter of what we put in our bodies.

Much useful info there, but too many media folk use their informational platform to deliver advice, which is easy to do, but no their brief.

bob :

11 Sep 2013 10:29:55pm

My cat really likes to eat what she has evolved to eat. Raw meat. There's a little book, called real food for dogs & cats, which suggests that many of our pets illnesses can be explained by "science" diets. The same could be applied to humans, if you think about it: the sickest animals on the planet. Do you know, those fruitarian apes turn all those carbs into short chain fats in their gut. Hmmm.

Vic Cherikoff :

11 Sep 2013 11:28:29pm

The author is partly right. We may well have adapted to being capable of consuming grains and legumes and derive energy from these foods. However, a mere 50 years ago selection of wheat varieties now called semi-dwarf wheats introduced gliadin as a new protein. This binds with receptors in our brains stimulating our appetites.Then there is the dwindling antioxidant levels in our fresh produce today. In order to get the vitamin C in an orange of 25 years ago, you'd need to eat 8 of the oranges we have available today. Next, modern produce is high in sucrose through selection and the methods of production. Sucrose in sweet fruits and vegetables replaces micro-sugars which are good sugars in that they enhance the bioavailability of nutrients by increasing absorption into our cells. One micro-sugar, trehalose, is itself antioxidant, doesn't form ageing by-products (advanced glycation end products or AGEs) and preserves the integrity of structural lipids and proteins, possibly even maintaining the length and flexibility of the end strands on our DNA, our telomeres. These dictate the viability of our DNA and play a role in delaying cell senesence or their useful life. Micro-sugar reaction products or glycans, glycolipids and glycoproteina are important functional molecules in cellular reactions and cell communications too. Modern produce is dominated by sucrose (bad sugar) and deficient in the good sugars. Fibre levels are falling, water content is up but overall antioxidant capacity is way down in comparison to wild foods such as those Australian Aborigines ate. Wild fruits are different to cultivated ones in their content of fat-soluble antioxidants with these being absent in modern fruits.The number of different foods was also different with most of us only able to forage in our stores for a maximum of 40 to 100 different foods compared to 150 in the Western Desert and over 700 in the wet tropics across the Top End.The claim that the paleo diet was high in fat is not generally true. Whether it is game animal meats, seafood or tree nuts, the fat content in foods through pre-history was limited. Game meats tend to have little storage fat and those that did were not available to the tribes people uniformly. At least in Australia, it was the Elders who more often got the adipose tissues while the adults and children had the low fat muscle and organ meats with their load of unsaturated or good fats.The content of anti-inflammatory components in wild foods (including the meats) is significant. A recent study showed elevated and prolonged inflammation markers in the blood of subjects eating marbled meat as against others who ate an equivalent amount of kangaroo meat.It is difficult to impossible to eat a paleo diet today unless you forage and hunt for wild foods which is beyond most people's abilities and is limited or unsustainable.However, as Aborigines were able to survive for over 60,000 years and are the

JoeBloggs :

Mizzbee :

12 Sep 2013 12:07:21am

I don't think the 4th point actually counts... Of course it's not what is recommended by nutritionists/ dieticians... Likewise many diets ranging from high or no carb, high protein etc...I believe that those who change to a paleo lifestyle make an informed decision, they do so having weighed up the information. And realistically isn't a no artificial foods approach the best???

Polly :

12 Sep 2013 5:07:47am

I think one of the reasons people love the 'paleo' diet is that they lose weight. I suspect the reason they lose weight - as with Atkins etc - is because if you cut out carbs it becomes much harder to snack. No chips, corn chips, cookies, muffins, BREAD, toast, sandwiches, pizzas, crackers, etc. If you want dip, you have to cut up some crudites to dip into it (or make some sort of vegie crackers). The upshot is you have to shop, plan, cook and eat more carefully, and the food you eat is more filling.

AC :

12 Sep 2013 8:17:10am

Interesting article. It (and the comments ) reinforce two things:

1. Dietary requirements of humans can vary significantly. Attempting to enforce any "system" on another human being isn't going to guarantee improvements to them at all. We live in an increasingly complex and mixed gene pool and to believe we all share the same needs is simply naive.

2. Proposing any criticism to a popular personal movement, including diets, is like criticising religion. You'll get no shortage of kick-back from the faithful ...

Libertine :

18 Sep 2013 1:32:27pm

Actually, it is more like denying climate change....hence the annoyance of so many people who actually do read scientific papers on biochemistry and physiology. There is a ton of scientific research supporting the view that modern diets are indeed responsible for the escalating novel health problems of the last 30-40 years. On the other hand, there is 0 evidence that saturated fat in the absence of high carbs causes heart disease and yet that same twaddle gets trotted out over and over....

Forget about the paleolithic era, Wester civilisation converted to a completely new way of eating in the second half of the twentieth century. High carbohydrate, concentrated sugars galore, much stale and processed food and new industrially extracted seed oils. This is truly the fad diet, not any of the alternative health regimes suggested by people identifying as paleo.

I don't see myself as "paleo" but I have learnt more about the science of nutrition from this side of science than I have from the food-industry sponsored pro-carb camp.

If are you wondering why all the official nutrition advice tells us to eat grains and reduce fat, you need to realise that there is a lot of nutrition research being conducted now under the influence NOT of science but of profit...

Tim :

12 Sep 2013 8:23:04am

None of these arguments are very strong or well thought through. I'm seeing a lot of confirmation bias here. Not to say I'm immune from that myself. The difference is I've actually tried the diet for an extended period. That's much more scientific than what this article is doing.

First, there were many very different varieties of Palaeolithic diets.Cool. So what? There are still constants across all these variation. Eg none of them ate bread, pasta and cereal every frigging day. The meat they ate was all grass fed, not grain fed, whether they had 12% or 99%. None of them had dairy. None of them drank beer every day (and yes, I know a dietician wouldn't recommend this either). None of them had corn syrup in most snacks. None of them had monocultured wheat. I'd say these are the basics to paleo. Although dairy is up in the air, and a personal choice after experimenting with and without to see if your mildly intolerant or not. I am. No dairy, no piles of snot coming out of my nose.The article points out that insects are paleo. Cool. Paleo advocates recognise they were a primary source of protein for cavemen. I don't like the taste of insects, so I choose to get my protein elsewhere. Asian cultures still eat insects.Experiment. Eat within your genetic or cultural disposition.Just watch the stuff no caveman had access to.It's more about what to avoid, not whether you have 50% or 30% of this or that thing that is ok. If you give your body a chance, it will tell you day to day what it wants, and you'll feel what it likes. It likes lots of fresh leafy greens. It doesn't like huge insulin spikes from cereal.I had an an almond croissant in France after two months strict paleo. I broke out into a sweat and my heart rate went way up like I'd just had a line of coke. That never happens when I eat a salad.

Second, we humans have done a lot of evolving in the last 12,000 years.This is just a list of outliers. "Some" humans this, "some" humans that. Does that mean we're all ok to eat all of those things? If we do, we won't die before we reproduce (unless you have some seriously dangerous allergy). We'll just be constantly, mildly unhealthy.Switching to paleo uncovered several mild allergies I didn't know I had.There's two kinds of stable "health". The kind where your body has gotten used to the problems it has to deal with, and doesn't over-react anymore (ie eating that almond croissant five years ago wouldn't have made me break out into a sweat). A doctor will see you in this state and give you a clean bill of health as a sub-optimal exemplar of the species.Or there's the kind where it's humming along with only what's good for it. Both are stable. One is optimal. Paleo is about the optimal kind. The kind that help you look 40 when you're really 60, like some of the more prominent paleo advocates. When people ask how old I am, I get them to guess first

Armin :

12 Sep 2013 8:37:00am

It amazes me that, when the global health industry talks diet/ re. health, the life style factor rarely gets a mention. Humans evolved to, hunt and gather, before we stuff our face. Fuel should be burned off through Moving our bod's. Nature did a pretty good job in engineering the planet and its inhabitants. If people were only wise enough to go back to the roots... But; the global "health" industry wouldn't want that; too many healthy people. Their precious profiteering billions would dry up; and we can't have that! PS: Heart disease, obesity, diabetes,etc etc; Prevention is better than Cure! Up off the couch Norm!!! x

DJL :

12 Sep 2013 9:27:07am

This whole discussion has lost sight of the fact that palaeolithic people were oppotunisric eaters they binged when they found food and starved in between. They ate what was available at the time at no time did mama tell the kids to go out and get some leafy greens to go with the aside of mastedon.

Chris K :

12 Sep 2013 12:51:18pm

There seems to be an overwhelming number of personal experiences in this discussion testifying to improved health, energy and vitality as a result of eating Paleo style.This is also my experience for the last two years; initial weight loss down to the same weight I was 30+ years ago in my prime (20yo). This same weight is being sustained without counting calories or worrying about how much I eat. (I eat huge portions - particularly veg). I have always exercised but despite this I frustratingly watched my waistline and weight increase during my 40s and 50s. Aside from the dramatic improvements to my health and wellbeing (btw I have not been sick for two years - not even a cold), the point that stood out to me about cutting out grains was that there is not a single health promoting substance in grains that I can't get from vegie and fruit! In addition, my research about the damaging inflammation effects of grains and highly processed dairy on my precious 'enterocytes' (cells that line the small intestine), convinces me not to eat grains.I am not a paleo fanatic and I will not defend its scientific research or lack there of. However, I will enthusiastically promote the very positive effects of eating like I did on the farm 40+ years ago – fresh meat and eggs , fresh veg and a little fruit, occasional macadamia nuts and fresh cream and butter. Perhaps I should publish a book – “The Farm Diet – How I ate when I was but a lad!”? Then again no, it would only be a one pager - very simple!

Bruce :

12 Sep 2013 10:05:07pm

Fast evolution over 12,000 years sounds unlikely. Every example Dr Karl gives here is either a loss of information in the genome or not anything to do with evolution. How is a bacteria in someone's gut an example of evolution? This evolution nonsense is as unscientific as the paleolithic diet.

Salad :

16 Sep 2013 7:43:48am

Wow - this made my day. If anybody needs an example of how strongly and passionately a whole bunch of humans can get when they're afraid that they've just been proven wrong, these comments are it!Science = 1Paleo = 0

Lindsay Vaughan :

14 Sep 2013 1:04:23am

I think most people are misunderstanding the Paleo diet, whether they follow it or not. The science is in plenty of books. I know there are arguments against it as well. I will say, I believe to arguments for it, and I am a high level athelete eating a mostly "Paleo" diet. This diet is meant to help people figure out the foods that don't sit well with their own digestive system. Everyone's Paleo should be different and in line with what makes them feel good. Cut out processed foods, oils, and sugars (that's a no brainer). Eat lots of Veggies and some fruits (also obvious! Don't eat the sh** that makes you feel like Sh**! Totally obvious! With regards to going against most dietitians, it depends on your opinion. I believe that dietitians are taught what they learn but that doesn't mean it's correct. There are plenty of "Paleo" dietitians as well. All I can say is diet it a personal thing. You should eat what makes you feel and preform well. You should eat food, not products that need labels for you to know what's in them. You SHOULD NOT be afraid of fat that is from a natural unprocessed source (coconut, seeds, olives, avocado, grass fed meat, etc.). You SHOULD be afraid of sugar! Bottom line!

Fuhrman fan :

18 Sep 2013 10:29:00pm

Ah! Self control... no matter what 'diet' you follow, this is indeed the first step.

It seems pretty clear to me that the bottom line is to avoid sugar, bad fats, artificial flavours... basically as someone said earlier - stuff with numbers in it. After 28 years of vegetarianism/veganism, going Paleo is not an option for me - but the other aspects of the Paleo diet make perfect sense. I follow the 'Eat to Live' plan by Dr Joel Fuhrman, and have found what others here have reported about Paleo: after removing dairy, most carbohydrates (particularly grains), processed foods, sugar and salt from my diet, I feel the healthiest I have for years. And if I eat 'off plan' I feel truly awful.

The first few weeks were tough... then I found I'd lost all craving for 'junk' food, salt, sugar etc. For the first time in my life! I lost 16 kilos, and my partner lost 20.

When something works this well for you, it's hard not to get passionate about it. I guess that is why this is such a heated debate in places...

I don't actually have any real issues with Dr Karl's arguments - although I do with some of the posters here, on both sides of the fence. I'm not going there... Bottom line for me, however: use your common sense! Is what you are about to put in your mouth 'real' food? Does it pack enough nutritional punch to justify the calories consumed? Is it preventing you from reaching and sustaining optimum health? Give your body a chance and it will tell you the answers...

Judith :

15 Sep 2013 8:26:32pm

Great diet! My husband lost 10kg in 3 months! Great He doubled the volume and mass of all meals and still lost weight. The Food bill at the super market increased by $100 weekly. So he was eating much more and losing weight! Is that agood thing in a world where millions starve every day!!!!

darryl herbert :

18 Sep 2013 12:59:20pm

thanks for the info dr carl ,looking thru the comments it seams the idea of science i got taught at school is fast dieing and is getting replaced by subjects getting treated like faith based religions to the point it is getting very hard to get an understanding on many subjects thru all the properganda and bile surounding science nowdays ....keep up the good work .i enjoy hearing your segments on the abc

Caitlin :

22 Sep 2013 2:09:40pm

I'm currently on the paleo diet. But not because I think I'm being super healthy. I suffer from intolerances to a protein found in grains and milk. I went on the paleo diet because legumes were also upsetting my stomach so it seemed easy enough to cut them out too. I feel 100% better, I would recommend this to anyone with food intolerances.

semprini :

23 Sep 2013 9:28:45pm

To claim that humans have "evolved" special bacteria in their gut to consume seaweed, is nonsense.(1) I am not japanese and eat seaweed just fine.(2) If I wanted that bacteria, I could get some from a Japanese, by various dodgy methods. No genetics, DNA or breeding required.

JoeBloggs :

Rhys Jones :

26 Sep 2013 2:52:06pm

I too was a little disappointed in this article, particularly as I usually like Dr Karl.I particularly disliked the comment that it must be wrong because it goes against mainstream dietary advice. Clearly the mainstream advice isn't working or we wouldn't have an obesity epidemic. I have read a lot of peer reviewed journal articles comparing low carb diets with low fat diets. In every case, the low carb dieters lose more weight. In addition, they have lower drop out rates, better lipid profiles and better glucose tolerance. I also note that there is not a single post here from a person who tried a low carb diet and found it ineffective or intolerable. To the contrary, all here who have tried it say they have lost weight and feel better. I too am in this category.

Marty :

Everyone is missing the point, the theory behind paleo diet is flawed but a lot of the recommendations in the diet are good, lots of fruit and veges, avoid processed foods etc. which Dr Karl says.

In regards to weight loss the paleo diet obviously works but the evidence shows that people trying to lose weight on low carb diets will lose more weight in the short term but will put it back on in the long term due to the fact it is hard to adhere to.

In the end eat a balanced diet which would be the majority of what the paleo diet is anyway just with some grains / legumes / milk etc. thrown in there

loma :

03 Oct 2013 12:16:58pm

Actually , Marty, I think you are missing the point - has anyone who has lost weight on the Paleo eating lifestyle mentioned putting the weight back on? On the contrary, they say the weight stays off because they lose the cravings for the stuff that makes them fat and thus it is easy to keep eating in the Paleo way.The only people who have trouble with the 'low carb' way of eating are those who do not replace the energy they used to derive from starchy carbs by increasing their energy intake from fats , and to a lesser extent, proteins.

JackSpratcaneatfat :

07 Oct 2013 6:17:13pm

OK. Let's not call it Paleo [although of course this label makes "the media's" job easier], but avoidance of lactose [I've always been intolerant], and carbs/grains because they = sugar highs, cravings and other blood-sugar crazies and instead consumption of lots of veg, some fruit, lean protein and healthy fats has to be the way to go for me. It's not about the weight necessarily, but this is just a bonus. It's more about the healthy, jumping-out-of-my-skin-feeling I get when I don't have craving- inducing carbs, and it's only taken me 47 years to work it out [some people go their whole lives without knowing!!] No pill, or advice from a physician, or cuts by a surgeon have ever made me feel better ;)